## Facts

- Deutsche Bank AG (DB) bought credit protection from Ambac Credit Products, LLC (Ambac) under a credit default swap (CDS) documented by an ISDA Master Agreement, the ISDA 1999 Credit Derivatives Definitions, and a transaction confirmation.
- The CDS referenced a portfolio of obligations that included Solutia Inc. bonds; upon a “credit event,” Ambac’s payment obligation was to be settled by DB’s delivery of “deliverable obligations” (physical settlement).
- Solutia filed for bankruptcy in December 2003, constituting a credit event.
- DB gave timely notice of the credit event within the contract’s notice period.
- The parties agreed to a physical settlement date of February 4, 2004.
- DB did not deliver all required Solutia bonds on February 4; it delivered in parts and completed delivery on March 4, 2004.
- By the time DB completed delivery, Ambac had withdrawn settlement instructions and refused to accept delivery and pay; Ambac’s parent also refused to pay on an alleged guarantee.
- DB sued for breach of contract and asserted related theories including breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and equitable estoppel.
- DB argued (i) CDS market practice permitted “rolling” late deliveries and (ii) a confirmation provision stating the transaction would terminate on the physical settlement date or May 2, 2005, “whichever was later,” allowed delivery up to May 2, 2005.

## Issues

1. Whether the ISDA documents and confirmation permitted DB to complete physical settlement by rolling deliveries substantially after the agreed physical settlement date.
2. Whether the “whichever was later” termination-date language extended the delivery window for an already-triggered credit event until the scheduled termination date.
3. Whether alleged trade usage, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, or equitable estoppel could excuse noncompliance with the contract’s settlement timing.

## Decision

- The court ruled for Ambac and rejected DB’s contract and related claims.
- The court held DB was required to complete delivery within the limited settlement period tied to the agreed physical settlement date, and DB’s month-late completion was outside the contractual delivery window.
- The court held the May 2, 2005 scheduled termination date functioned as a long-stop termination for the transaction and did not create an open-ended right to deliver after a physical settlement date had been set.
- The court found DB did not prove a sufficiently certain and uniform CDS trade usage that modified or displaced the written timing requirements.
- The court concluded the implied covenant and estoppel theories could not be used to create a right to late delivery contrary to the express contract structure.

## Legal Principles

- Under New York law, integrated written agreements are enforced according to their terms; detailed standardized documentation is read as a coherent scheme allocating rights and duties.
- In ISDA-governed CDS physical settlement, the protection buyer must satisfy specified notice and delivery mechanics; failure to deliver within the contractual settlement window defeats the buyer’s claim to payment.
- Contract provisions concerning a scheduled termination date are construed in context; absent clear language, they do not extend settlement deadlines for a credit event beyond an agreed physical settlement date.
- Trade usage may inform interpretation only where consistent with the agreement; it cannot override clear contractual language, and it must be shown to be definite, uniform, and known in the relevant market.
- The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot be used to impose obligations or confer rights that contradict express contract terms; equitable estoppel requires clear conduct inducing reasonable, detrimental reliance.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the CDS’s written ISDA timing and settlement mechanics, holding that DB’s substantially late completion of physical delivery barred recovery and that neither the confirmation’s scheduled termination date nor alleged market practice, good-faith duties, or estoppel altered the contract’s limited delivery window.


Deutsche Bank AG v. Ambac Credit Prods., LLC, No. 04 Civ. 5594 (DLC), 2006 WL 1867497 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)